Don't hit me: Would taking Moss away from Brady make Brady better?

[BradyManny]

OR do we think Moss and Welker were just the only real options he had?

This one.

In 2007, our #3 combo of Stallworth and Gaffney combined for 82 catches and 1146 yards, with 8 TDs.

In 2009, our #3 combo of Sam Aiken & Joey Galloway combined for 27 catches and 393 yards, with 2TDs.

It's not Brady, Moss, Welker and it's probably not even poor Bill O'Brien. It's our #3 wideout position, and it is the main reason we weren't able to compete for a title last season.

Sure, we had huge problems on defense, but they were the same problems that were hid by a historically explosive offense in 2007, and they would have again, if one or two of Galloway, Lewis, Tate had panned out. (I think Tate will pan out this year, though).

 

[The Dynasty]

Bottom line in this thread is this....


Brady is a better QB when he has more weapons to throw to and none of those weapons has to be an all-pro like Moss and Welker,they just have to be able to get open in thier expected routes and catch the ball.

Brady has made average WRs like Deion Branch,David Patten and David Givens out to be more than they really are which showed when they went to other teams but with Brady as their QB, them being just average receivers is all they needed to be to get this offense to win championships.

We don't need Randy Moss type players to win championships,He haven't before and don't now,we just need a COMPLETE WR corps full of guys who want to win and can catch the ball both in tight quarters and in the open field.

While its nice to have allstars and future HOFers at one position,it is NOT neccesary to have them to win it all....not when a HOF QB is at the controls

That statement is false. I gave you the stats that proved other wise. Brady's best years have been when he has had Moss and Welker, not when he had 4 or 5 average WR's

 

[Kontradiction]

that's true, lol!!!!!

ROFL! I know, right!? :rocker:

 

[emoney_33]

How can you say that the offense was not the biggest reason for disappointment? Look at the 2007 season and all the records we broke. We had all of the major contributors on the 2009 roster. Now I am not saying that the Patriots offense should have been putting up stats like in 2007, but they should have been much better in 2009. Especially in the PPG. 2007 we averaged 36.8 PPG, 2009 we averaged 26.7. A 10 point difference.

Well comparing 2009 to 2007, the offense was the more significant dropoff yes. But I don't use 2007 as my basis of expectations. Taking 2009 as a whole, the defense was the lesser unit and more responsible for the 10-6 (11-5 really) record than the offense IMO.

Our defense in 2009 was very inexperienced, what did you expect them to produce this season? Look at all the rookies and inexperienced players that had a major role. Were you expecting a dominant defense like during the Super Bowl years? They were 11th in total defense and 5th in PPG. I think that definitely exceeded expectations going into the season. With the talent that was on the offense compared to the defense you could have definitely gotten more out of the offense that what was offered this season.

OK maybe I shouldn't have used the word "disappointment". Starting with 0 expectations and an objective analysis, I come to the conclusion that the defense was more responsible for the losses than the offense (except for the Ravens game which was 90% on the offense)

 

[patsfan-1982]

How many Super Bowls have we won with 5 average joes at WR/TE? and how many have we won with 2 all stars at WR?

Case Closed...the evidence speaks for itself

your forgeting they had 4 great LB's a real shutdown corner in ty law, harrison. seymour, in he's prime.

all brady had to do was get the lead and the defense would win it. let's face. the pats are rebuilding. and they still made the playoff. it has noting to do what welker and moss. you take them off this team and the pats don't win more then 7 games in 2009.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think you are glossing over some facts.

Bottom line in this thread is this....


Brady is a better QB when he has more weapons to throw to and none of those weapons has to be an all-pro like Moss and Welker,they just have to be able to get open in thier expected routes and catch the ball.

Every competent QB is better with more offensive weapons...

Brady has made average WRs like Deion Branch,David Patten and David Givens out to be more than they really are which showed when they went to other teams but with Brady as their QB, them being just average receivers is all they needed to be to get this offense to win championships..

Statistically speaking, when healthy in 2006, Branch put up almost identical numbers to his best year in NE. Patten had a strong 2007 w/ NO. Givens was hurt. Gaffney improved. Dan Graham was the same. Even Jermaine Wiggins had monster years in MN. IMO Brady making WRs better than what they are is a myth. Great QB no question. But not a miracle worker. Defense, execution, misdirecton were Brady's friends in 01 and 03. 04 was a brutal running game and again, outstanding D.

We don't need Randy Moss type players to win championships,He haven't before and don't now,we just need a COMPLETE WR corps full of guys who want to win and can catch the ball both in tight quarters and in the open field.

Talent wins. Balance wins (most of the time). Defense wins. Good coaching wins. Being opportunistic wins. You can win a Sb w/ Randy Moss. It almost happened no thanks to the 2min D, a BS catch and Asante playing hallway monitor.

While its nice to have allstars and future HOFers at one position,it is NOT neccesary to have them to win it all....not when a HOF QB is at the controls

Once again, a myth on Brady. History has proven that sound QB play w/ an unspectular offense NEEDS a dominant D. 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2005 Steelers,2001, 03 Pats. 2007 Giants...You can make a case for the 2006 Colts as their offense in the playoffs was sub-par, but made plays when it counted. The D carried them.

Brady puts teams over the top, but hes doesn't turn chix-you-know-what to chix salad.

 

[BradyManny]

Well comparing 2009 to 2007, the offense was the more significant dropoff yes. But I don't use 2007 as my basis of expectations. Taking 2009 as a whole, the defense was the lesser unit and more responsible for the 10-6 (11-5 really) record than the offense IMO.

I don't think 2007 is an unrealistic expectation going forward. Look what the offense managed to do without Brady in 2008 - granted, it generally only fared well against weak competition. With Brady back, I don't see why we can't be the #1 offense in the league again if we re-gain a depth at wide receiver that matches what we had in 2007, or what the Saints/Colts had this year.

 

[emoney_33]

I don't think 2007 is an unrealistic expectation going forward. Look what the offense managed to do without Brady in 2008 - granted, it generally only fared well against weak competition. With Brady back, I don't see why we can't be the #1 offense in the league again if we re-gain a depth at wide receiver that matches what we had in 2007, or what the Saints/Colts had this year.

I'm not saying it's an unrealistic goal, just an unrealistic expectation. I absolutely do think we are capable of getting back to 2007 level production, I'm just not going to expect it. I will expect a top 3-5 offense however.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

That is a totally different argument, your original point was about Brady having better numbers, not the Patriot team as a whole.

Look at the Patriot defenses in the Super Bowl years, they were the dominant unit. Having 5 average WR's was not the reason for winning those Super Bowls.

I never mentioned stats...I mentioned Brady being a better and more dangerous QB and fact is he is more dangerous with 5 average weapons on the field at the same time than with 2 good WR players and 3 crappy players which should not be in the league and/or are too young and green.

While the defenses those years helped a lot in winning those Super Bowls they also needed the offense to come up big in critical situations and that they did,the defense did not score on that final drive vs. the rams and the defense gave up huge chunks of yardage to Carolina and to Owens in the other two so I think you look at those offenses back then as pretty important ....yes those years the defense was better than now, but do you really think with a good defense that we would have won it all last season? - Not with our inconsistant OL and lower depth of receivers we were not going to.

 

[The Dynasty]

Well comparing 2009 to 2007, the offense was the more significant dropoff yes. But I don't use 2007 as my basis of expectations. Taking 2009 as a whole, the defense was the lesser unit and more responsible for the 10-6 (11-5 really) record than the offense IMO.

Then what do you use as your basis of expectations? In 2008 we averaged 25.6 PPG. 2009 26.7. Is Brady only a 1.1 PPG difference? You have to say that the offense did not perform to their highest level in 2009. Now for the defense unit. There is no question that talent wise the 2008 defense was better than the 2009 defense, yet in 2008 they gave up 19.3 PPG and in 2009 17.8. The 2009 defense actually out performed the 2008 defense yet having much less talent. I really dont see how you can come up with the defense being the lesser unit in 2009.

OK maybe I shouldn't have used the word "disappointment". Starting with 0 expectations and an objective analysis, I come the conclusion that the defense was more responsible for the losses than the offense (except for the Ravens game which was 90% on the offense)

I have already had the debate with you as to which unit was responsible for each loss and we disagreed on the majority of them. As a whole though you have to say that the lesser unit was the offense based upon the talent that was on each side of the ball.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Now I know they both had very good numbers and pro-bowl performances last year, but with Welker being out for at least six games and Moss getting shipped away, would we see the return of the Brady who spreads the ball around?

OR do we think Moss and Welker were just the only real options he had?

All time worst thread ever ... take a mulligan.

 

[The Dynasty]

I never mentioned stats...I mentioned Brady being a better and more dangerous QB and fact is he is more dangerous with 5 average weapons on the field at the same time than with 2 good WR players and 3 crappy players which should not be in the league and/or are too young and green.

While the defenses those years helped a lot in winning those Super Bowls they also needed the offense to come up big in critical situations and that they did,the defense did not score on that final drive vs. the rams and the defense gave up huge chunks of yardage to Carolina and to Owens in the other two so I think you look at those offenses back then as pretty important ....yes those years the defense was better than now, but do you really think with a good defense that we would have won it all last season? - Not with our inconsistant OL and lower depth of receivers we were not going to.

Brady's passing numbers have been better with Moss and Welker. Winning championships is not really a measure of how well a QB played, its more about the team as a whole. Stats prove how good of a year a QB had. Brady's best years have come with Moss and Welker, not having 4-5 average guys.

No, I do not believe that if we had a better defense this past season that we would have won the Super Bowl. When we won the SB's the offense was not counted on to win games, Brady was asked to manage the game and not make mistakes. The defense was the primary unit. This past season, I think the OL wasnt an issue I thought they played fairly well despite the injuries. I do agree that an issue this season was the lack of a 3rd WR. If we had any of the WR's that we had in 03 and 04 to be our #3 WR in 09 I think that we would have won a lot more games and made a deeper run. The 09 Pats lacked a #3 WR and that is the major reason why the offense struggled, not because they didnt have 4-5 average guys.

 

[emoney_33]

Then what do you use as your basis of expectations? In 2008 we averaged 25.6 PPG. 2009 26.7. Is Brady only a 1.1 PPG difference? You have to say that the offense did not perform to their highest level in 2009. Now for the defense unit. There is no question that talent wise the 2008 defense was better than the 2009 defense, yet in 2008 they gave up 19.3 PPG and in 2009 17.8. The 2009 defense actually out performed the 2008 defense yet having much less talent. I really dont see how you can come up with the defense being the lesser unit in 2009.

Strictly PPG ignores the fact that the defensive schedule was much more difficult than the offensive schedule.

The rush defense let up 4.4 YPC, the pass defense let up 7.0 YPA.

Football outsiders adjusted stats have at the top of the league and the defense near the bottom of the league.

I don't use expectations in my analysis, hence why I believe I should not have used the term "disappointment".

I have already had the debate with you as to which unit was responsible for each loss and we disagreed on the majority of them. As a whole though you have to say that the lesser unit was the offense based upon the talent that was on each side of the ball.

Yes we do disagree on most of them, but that stems from you going into the analysis with expectations. Talent plays a part of what makes a unit good or bad, but talent is a cause factor. The defensive unit played worse than the offensive unit, and that has nothing to do with the reason for why they played worse (i.e. talent, inexperience etc...)

The overall point kind of relies on the fact that the offense has talent. They are BETTER than they used to be precisely because they have more talent than they used to be.

 

[emoney_33]

I never mentioned stats...I mentioned Brady being a better and more dangerous QB and fact is he is more dangerous with 5 average weapons on the field at the same time than with 2 good WR players and 3 crappy players which should not be in the league and/or are too young and green.

While the defenses those years helped a lot in winning those Super Bowls they also needed the offense to come up big in critical situations and that they did,the defense did not score on that final drive vs. the rams and the defense gave up huge chunks of yardage to Carolina and to Owens in the other two so I think you look at those offenses back then as pretty important ....yes those years the defense was better than now, but do you really think with a good defense that we would have won it all last season? - Not with our inconsistant OL and lower depth of receivers we were not going to.

Nitpick drives in the rams game and carolina 2nd half while ignoring things like the titans game and the indy game in 2003 for example.

But I'm sure the 4 INT, 1 Fumble and 1 Safety against Indy in 2003 had nothing to do with anything. It was all the magical offense and underpaid rookie WRs.

(BTW, do all the people arguing for the 4-5 average WRs understand that we didn't sign or trade for Branch, Givens and they made < $1M? Find me 2-3 receivers of their calibur (what they were in 03/04) for less than $1M and we'll add them in a heartbeat to go along with Moss and Welker)

 

[patsinthesnow]

I see Jsn's point, statistics aside, if you were a patriots receiver during the superbowl run, if you were open, Brady would throw it to you. Brady has targeted Moss during the season to early resulting in some Interceptions.

In 2007, Moss was the best receiver in the NFL, and had the best season a receiver ever had. Now it's 2010, he's 33, and I can't call him a top 5 receiver.
(Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Brandon Marshall, Wes Welker).

However, like other posters said, the Pats cannot trade Moss unless they get depth or trade Moss for a receiver and a pick. The only option I see is to trade Moss for a pick, trade one of the 2nds for a RFA receiver, and then draft one receiver with a pick.

So it would look like:

1. RFA
2. Welker (whenever the return)
3. Rookie
4. Edelman
5. Tate
6. Patten

 

[alvinnf]

I would trade Randy Moss to KC for Charlie Weiss in a minute! Sh!t I'd throw in a 2nd rounder.

 

[The Dynasty]

Strictly PPG ignores the fact that the defensive schedule was much more difficult than the offensive schedule.

The rush defense let up 4.4 YPC, the pass defense let up 7.0 YPA.

Football outsiders adjusted stats have at the top of the league and the defense near the bottom of the league.

I don't use expectations in my analysis, hence why I believe I should not have used the term "disappointment".

You cant base your whole feelings on the success of a teams unit as the schedule that they faced. Teams change throughout the season for example look at the Titans this past season, when the Pats played them they were a lot worse than they were at the end of the season. So the Pats scoring 49 points on them looks good at the end of the season, even though when the Pats played them they were on of the worse teams in the league. Basing your opinion off of strength of scheduling per unit is not really the best way to go because things can change throughout the season, you need to look at a season at a whole.

Yes we do disagree on most of them, but that stems from you going into the analysis with expectations. Talent plays a part of what makes a unit good or bad, but talent is a cause factor. The defensive unit played worse than the offensive unit, and that has nothing to do with the reason for why they played worse (i.e. talent, inexperience etc...)

The overall point kind of relies on the fact that the offense has talent. They are BETTER than they used to be precisely because they have more talent than they used to be.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with the talent thing. The offense had much more talent than the defense, so it is expected that the offense would perform better than the defense, that was not the case this season. The defense had a much lesser talent level but exceeded expectations.

 

[emoney_33]

I see Jsn's point, statistics aside, if you were a patriots receiver during the superbowl run, if you were open, Brady would throw it to you. Brady has targeted Moss during the season to early resulting in some Interceptions.

Prove to me that A) he never missed an open receiver back then and B) he refuses to throw to open receivers now

Also do you think if both Branch and Bethel were open in 2004 that Brady would NOT choose Branch a vast majority of the time?

In 2007, Moss was the best receiver in the NFL, and had the best season a receiver ever had. Now it's 2010, he's 33, and I can't call him a top 5 receiver.
(Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Brandon Marshall, Wes Welker).

I will do more than call him a top 5 receiver, i"ll call him top 3 if not top 1. 2009 stats with a separated shoulder, difficult pass defense schedule, Brady coming off injury, OL struggles, and lack of 3rd WR that isn't a special teams only player, indicate that there's a very high chance that a healthy 2010 will produce another top year for Moss.

 

[emoney_33]

You cant base your whole feelings on the success of a teams unit as the schedule that they faced. Teams change throughout the season for example look at the Titans this past season, when the Pats played them they were a lot worse than they were at the end of the season. So the Pats scoring 49 points on them looks good at the end of the season, even though when the Pats played them they were on of the worse teams in the league. Basing your opinion off of strength of scheduling per unit is not really the best way to go because things can change throughout the season, you need to look at a season at a whole.

Every singular stat or analysis tool has flaws. When I bring up some stats that are better than others, I'm not arguing that they alone depict the entirety of the situation. However it is much less limited in scope than just looking at PPG for instance.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with the talent thing. The offense had much more talent than the defense, so it is expected that the offense would perform better than the defense, that was not the case this season. The defense had a much lesser talent level but exceeded expectations.

There's two things here that I've argued that you aren't separating, probably due to my posting quick thoughts quoting you while thinking in my head about the entire thread worth of conversation.

My main argument with others is that Moss+Welker talent level is better for the offense and team than the 4-5 average WR of 03/04.

The second argument is which unit was more to blame for the losses in 2009, without looking at the reasons or expectations. Objectively, the defense was more to blame.

I will agree with you that the relatively poor performance of the defense is understandable and not very unexpected due to all of the turnaround, inexperience etc...

 

[patsinthesnow]

Prove to me that A) he never missed an open receiver back then and B) he refuses to throw to open receivers now

Also do you think if both Branch and Bethel were open in 2004 that Brady would NOT choose Branch a vast majority of the time?



I will do more than call him a top 5 receiver, i"ll call him top 3 if not top 1. 2009 stats with a separated shoulder, difficult pass defense schedule, Brady coming off injury, OL struggles, and lack of 3rd WR that isn't a special teams only player, indicate that there's a very high chance that a healthy 2010 will produce another top year for Moss.

I didn't feel as he forced it to Branch though. The eye test showed Brady forced it to Moss, although he kind of had to because he isn't comfortable with Aiken and Watson.

At his age, I would put him at #6, but everyone has their opinion.